Week 5
July 16 – 22
Important Dates:
Also, by now we hope that you can turn things in via your portfolio. If not, you can still use the Google Drive links. If your portfolio has a password, please email Cary, Matt, and McKenna w/ the password. IMPORTANT: There are several big projects ahead, including several article critiques, and a research proposal. You cannot wait until the week they are due to be successful, please look ahead and plan ahead! |
|
Check-in Question: What is something that you’re good at but don’t value? What is something that you aren’t good at but wish you were?[formidable id=6] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randomized Experiments, Gold Standards and Rigor Remler, D.K. & Van Ryzin, G.G. (2010). (Chapter 12) Randomized field experiments. Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation (pp. 395-426). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [discussion: Q1 Q2 Q3 ] [RVR Ch. 12 QUIZ] Phillips (2006). A guide for the perplexed: Scientific educational research, methodology, and the gold versus platinum standards. Educational Research Review, 15-26. [discussion: Q1 Q2 Q3 ] [**OPTIONAL**] Derry, G. (1999). Chapter 13: Contentious questions: The shadowy borderlands of science. In What science is and how it works (pp. 174-188). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.[ discussion: ] [**OPTIONAL**] Derry, G. (1999). Chapter 15: Questions of legitimacy: The postmodern critique of science. In What science is and how it works (pp. 207-214). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.[ discussion: ] Continue reading →Gee, J. P. (2007). Learning and games. In K. Salen (ed.), The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning (pp. 21-40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. dpi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.021.3646.021. [discussion: Q1, Q2, Q3 ] Continue reading → |
|